Sunday, August 29, 2010

Budget Busters

Not that our regular readers would notice, but we've had a troll hanging around these parts for a few years. We filter out most of his nonsense, accusing us of being Republicans (we are), a Tea Party front blog (we've never written a single word on the Tea Party), and bigots (huh?). He also thinks we get our marching orders from Rush Limbaugh (never heard his show), Glenn Beck (never seen his show, haven't read his books) and whomever else is leading the anti-Obama charge.

Notice the first upward swing in 2008 when democrats took over Congress and wrote the budget? And then when they took the White House in 2009? Those are TRILLION dollar deficits. And it isn't going to get any better until the 2011 elections go the other direction. But hey, keep up with the liberal fantasies of Bush breaking the economy and sending the country down the road to ruin.

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.

Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.

Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.

The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).

During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

And to those claiming we only link to right leaning sites, we can only say, "Um...duh?"

46 Comments:

We have a lot of enemies these days; deficit spending/debt and inflation are huge ones that go largely unnoticed because they utilize the old 'boil the frog slowly' methodology.

There's a lot of blame to go around, when it comes to this, and no party has clean hands. That said, the recent Obama helicopter-drop of absurd amounts of debt-funded 'stimulus' into the economy has implications that resonate far beyond just bond interest. There are implications to what we're doing right now that is shaping the very nature of global finance, with us hitching ourselves to a terrible debt-wagon while the lenders (particularly China) enjoys a multi-generational free ride.

The fiscal "stimulus" maneuvers made by Obama and the complicit (D)'s are so grave in nature that whatever war spending we made in Iraq really pales in comparison.

Buy a vacation property someplace quaint, quiet and safe and enjoy the simple things in life; reading, fishing, bike rides with the family, gardening, walks with the dog. Get the lenders hooks out of your wallet, save wisely and hedge shrewdly against things you think may lie in store... If Rome is about to burn, then make sure you have someplace to go other than Rome. If you're an 'action junkie' who likes your life to be constantly buzzing, you're about to get all the 'excitement' you can stomach.

Did some research on the graph. Origin is here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.htmlNote that the source is NOT the CBO.The data for pre- and post-2009 came from two different sources, which used different baselines and assumptions in their analyses.

Not a lib, but the reason behind jump in spending was because the Bush administration did not include the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in their budgets. Obama's did in an effort for "greater transpency."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Did you see the different colors? The spending IS included in this chart and shows the dems were full of crap claiming it was ruining the country. Those big deficits at the 2008.2009 side of the chart is Obama's spendulous and healthcare numbers. Dems are ruining this country.

Even the libs and leeches are getting screwed by Barry. That "free" health care ain't so free. Pre existing conditions are gonna pay about $350 a month plus a $2500 deductable plus a copayment. That's about 7k a year before you see anything. Not to mention what this ahole has done to our economy and our respect among foreign nations. Look for these clowns to try and backdoor amnesty or voting rights for illegals. It's the only hope for them to save power.

Wait until Jan 2011 when barry and his crew raise all the taxes on income, Bush tax cuts expire and now we will be forced to pay more for the illegal idiots and the lazy link card holders! demorats are costing the middle class everything! The SWEEP in november will open lots of people eyes the republicans will be on top then barry will be done 1 term of torture from his regime then get this country back!

When somebody accuses you of being a right-wing bigot, it's tantamount to an admission that they can't make a successful argument on the merits of the policy being discussed. These days it's so obvious that they have nothing else left to sling. People are learning quickly that "bigot" really means nothing. Keep focused on the facts and logic of the issues. And remember...

It has everything to do with Obama being a hack Chicago machine politician with a 9.5% unemployment rate, $1.2 TRILLION deficits, coddling terrorists, and pretty much driving the entire country into a ditch.

In fact, only your lib-tard insecure ass brought up race as a default setting to cover for the incompetency of a poor excuse for a leader.

From 1980 to 1992 (Reagen and Bush years) the US National Debit went from just 31% of the GNP to almost 70%. Clinton saw a 20% decline in the National Debit. Bush 2.0 saw an increase of 18% approx over the previous administrations recouping to bring the National Debit % of the GNP to about 75%. And since taking office Obama has increased it by about 7.6% from what the previous admin left it at.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

I am a pure Independent and thankfully am not the troll you are talking about.

The Rampant republicanism that runs through your blog is depressing when you consider historically republicans are Anti-Union. While there are Democratic movements like ACORN that are anti-union and anti-labor; they are the exception and not the norm of the political party.

Like Obama or not....vote for him or not. Lets remember one thing.

Even if he was a Republican; he still remains a product of the Chicago political system. Thus, you can't trust him regardless of party lines.

From 1980 to 1992 (Reagen and Bush years) the US National Debit went from just 31% of the GNP to almost 70%. Clinton saw a 20% decline in the National Debit. Bush 2.0 saw an increase of 18% approx over the previous administrations recouping to bring the National Debit % of the GNP to about 75%.And since taking office Obama has increased it by about 7.6% from what the previous admin left it at.======================

It's a pretty nuanced discussion. While the 'buck stops here' with whoever is in the oval office, there are a lot of dynamics in play.

Chiefly, Congress and Senate has significantly more control over spending than the President, however, ultimately, things are liable to circumstance. We can correlate spending events to different things. Democrat congresses were directly responsible for some of the most profligate waste the first world has ever seen during the 'deficit boom' of the 80's and 90's. As long as Line Item Veto remains a non starter, we have to give presidents a bit of latitude in this regard and place more blame on the people actually drafting the bill.

In the case of Reagan, defense spending made up a lot of it, in the case of Bush 1.0, there was a war and a continuation of the Reagan doctrine. When the Republicans took control of the show in 94, we really tightened our belts and stopped a lot of the waste that occurred during the Democrat years in the 80's and early 90's. It was peacetime and the economy was very, very good. Clinton signed off on spending bills that were put together by people who weren't fellow Democrats.

The world changed in a big way after 9/11 and Bush 2.0 ran deficits for obvious reasons. We can debate Iraq until we're blue in the face (I disagree strongly with our involvement in Iraq) however, we dove headfirst into that toilet when they attacked us and deficits were inevitable.

Obama and the Democrat legislators inherited a rapidly cratering economy that had virtually nothing to do with executive power- Democrat, Republican or otherwise- in addition to an ongoing war. Instead of choosing the path of prudence, he chose a path that was, at it's core, socialism, only instead of taking from the producers, he just assumed more debt.

It's impossible to debate this issue point for point within the confines of blog comments since it's just so in-depth; a virtually indecipherable web of varying economic dynamics, all contingent on one another.

The cliff notes are this.All politicians suck, but some suck less than others on economic issues. Yes, the Republicans got a bit power-drunk during the Bush years and lost their way in terms of political ideology, but what Obama has done and is doing isn't in the same universe. He is fundamentally altering our system in a way that is terrible for productive, upwardly mobile people. The producers have just been saddled with the unbearable burden of paying they way of the unproductive consumers- all newly codified by federal law.

I hope your kids will enjoy their 60% tax brackets or their $30 loaves of bread, in their adult yuears. You can thank the Democrats of today for this.

Do you even understand charts? All the chart does is break out the supposedly "uncounted cost" of the Iraq war to the budget deficits. Npthing at all in there about Medicare (which Obama is cutting) or Cheney.

You really have to study economic,political,world history and its trends to somewhat comprehend what is going on.This has all happened before, who do you think paid for WWII, the taxpayerWho paid for the interstate program, the taxpayerThe tax rates during the 50's were very high,but we had manufacturingAs an American, to be one party or the other is a sign of an extreme lack of intelligenceIf you believe in individual rights, pro choice, strong military deterrant, secure borders,flat tax, tax breaks for manufacturing for job creation,emphasis placed on strengthening middle class, limits on welfare, government as a legislative body not a manager...which party do you vote with???

According to many of your posters, all liberals are elitists, and all elitists are stupid. That we progressives want to force Big Government Death Panel Health Care down their throats and accuse everyone who disagrees with President Obama for any reason of racism. The elites want to destroy the country they love and give their money to the lazy. And many of you can’t wait for me to be a victim of some violent crime so I WILL understand. I am a liberal but I also protested at City Hall for the police, I circled the blocks for two hours and with 2 CPD friends of mine. I have donated gift certificates to CPD appreciation day. I have worked with some of the CPD brass in place right now and you are right, some of them are god-awful. Yes some of my friends are woefully ignorant about what cops have to endure on the streets. They don’t understand the mentality of the criminal element or how they game the system. But yes we will vote for an alternative to Daley. And we are grateful for what you do and hope that you will someday get the leadership you deserve to lead you in a professional and respectful manner. Many times people have posted their appreciation of the police on this blog and the work they do. Let me join in the chorus, keep up the good work.

Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration.

We've seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending, credit markets have frozen, and families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money.

We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action.

We boosted confidence in money market mutual funds and acted to prevent major investors from intentionally driving down stocks for their own personal gain.

Most importantly, my administration is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets.

Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the house decline, and the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger.

So I propose that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets and supply urgently needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.

This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry. It is aimed at preserving America's overall economy.

It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America's financial system is back on track.

I know many Americans have questions tonight: How did we reach this point in our economy? How will the solution I propose work? And what does this mean for your financial future?

Anybody notice that since Obama is President that you can't find a good war protest. I guess in the last two years U.S. involvement in the Middle East is okay. Aren't we all proud that we have ended our combat role in Iraq while only yesterday 7 more young Americans were killed in Afghanistan with no end in sight.Not commenting on whether we should be there or not what the shame is is the phoniness of the DemocRats who have become so quiet.Somebody should tell Cindy Sheehan that there is plenty of room in Washington Park where she can camp near Obama's house in Hyde Park. For nearly a year she lived outside near Bush's home in Crawford Tx and got news coverage almost every day.Maybe the protests were Anti-Bush and not Anti-War.If the protesters exist is the media refusing to let the rest of America know that people oppose Obama's war plans.Just veniting, Sorry